US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

  • News
  • Thread starter StatGuy2000
  • Start date
In summary: I think I should also mention that the order also affects green card holders and other legal residents.
  • #316
David Reeves said:
I believe that due to Posse Comitatus the Army can't get involved, so we need to use the Guard. I would never underestimate the Guard. The Guard has a long tradition of excellence. Guard soldiers have won numerous Medals of Honor in foreign wars. I would almost feel sorry for the gangsters if they went up against the Guard.

Perhaps your scenario is what President Trump had in mind the other day when he said "they’re rough and they’re tough but they’re not tough like our people.” Clearly we now have a President who respects the military, and he intends to actually do something about crime. I think that, under Trump, the Guard, the police, the FBI, and so on, would take off the gloves and crush the gangsters, whether they are native-born or immigrants.
You misunderstood me: I was being facetious. I don't think this should actually be done at all. Not the army, not the National Guard. Don't ignite dry tinder in the wild.

The only sane way to handle this problem is tighter gun control and extreme vetting for people who buy guns. But the NRA, and average rural yahoo won't have it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #317
Time cover labels Bannon ‘The Great Manipulator’

Is Trump Bannon's puppet? Or is he Putin's puppet? Or does he alternate days? I am so confused!
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and mheslep
  • #318
David Reeves said:
However, speaking of ironies, there are many ironies in life. For example, some of my Mennonite ancestors fled to America from Switzerland because of persecution by the Calvinists in Bern. Some Mennonites were in fact killed by the Calvinist theocracy as well as by Roman Catholics. Here the Mennonites found freedom, due to separation of church and state. Many Baptists and other Protestant groups were also persecuted in Europe. This is why we have never had a state religion. We know what it leads to.
I'm not talking about the past, I am talking about the present. Atheists in the US have a hard time running for anything in politics. Compare this to Western Europe: Religion is part of the private life. It does not come up in politics. As an example, you won't see a German chancellor claim to pray to a god before making decisions, something that seems to happen frequently in the US (personal impression).
David Reeves said:
Meanwhile, today in Europe, some nations still have a "state church" and impose a "church tax" on citizens.
No country has a "state church" that would have political power, and church taxes are collected from church members only - you can simply not join a church if you don't want to pay them. It is just a membership fee.
David Reeves said:
A person might read from the book of Genesis on Sunday, and then work on carbon dating a fossil on Monday.
That person won't be among the 26% thinking humans came into existence within the last 10,000 years. A view so uncommon in Europe that the polls don't even ask for it. Creationism (old or young Earth combined) gets single-digit approval ratings here (example), compared to more than 50% in the US ("Adam and Eve were real people").

To come back to the topic: It does matter. You don't make a "Muslim ban" (a political action based on a religion) if religion does not play a large role in politics. And you don't get away with it without a relevant approval rating in the population.
 
  • #319
mfb said:
No country has a "state church" that would have political power

In the UK we still have 26 Bishops of the Church of England who sit in the House of Lords, our unelected second chamber.
 
  • Like
Likes Aufbauwerk 2045
  • #320
Okay, a tiny bit of political power. 28 out of 805 seats in one chamber that can force the other one to reconsider bills.
 
  • #321
zoobyshoe said:
... And freedom of the press just took a big hit, didn't it?
Not according to the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press

zoobyshoe said:
...He blocked several major news outlets from the White House press conference today.
As did Obama's administration which similarly attempted to block Fox news. There are political consequences.

2009:
...the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press.
 
Last edited:
  • #322
Here's a view common in Europe (10 EU states, 10,000 in survey)

Poll question: 'All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’
Agree: 55%
Neither agree nor disagree: 25%
Disagree: 20%
 
Last edited:
  • #323
It would be interesting to see the specific phrasing. It is easy to translate that in different ways for those countries.
And did they ask only this question?
Yes Prime Minister.

Note that migration and a general travel ban are different things.
 
  • #324
zoobyshoe said:
But, I wonder if you've ever heard of the Hostile Media Effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
No, I had never heard of that term before, but I was aware of the effect. It seems to be just human nature. I try to take such things into account when I make judgements, but no one is perfect. As I said before, I often read the liberal's view, and not just read it, I try to understand it. After all, I read a lot posts here, which are mostly liberal.
zoobyshoe said:
As a liberal, I often get white-knucked when I see the Washington Post, for example, printing anything that makes liberals look bad in any way for any reason. There's at least one fairly important story a day where I feel it doesn't make liberals look good enough and it makes conservatives look too acceptable.
In that case you've probably seen many main stream media reports and articles that portrayed Obama in a bad way?

zoobyshoe said:
Why does the alleged "liberal" media print any bad news about liberals if it actually is 'the liberal media'? Remember, for example, when Hillary got sick during the campaign? Why didn't the "liberal" media bury this story and the speculation she might be at death's door? The answer is because it's not actually the "liberal" media. It's the sensational media: anything that gets more clicks becomes the headline. The slant is always toward what is the most sensational. The "liberal" media doesn't care that liberal Hillary is getting investigated over and over - those investigations get headline coverage because they get more clicks. Sensation has always trumped politics in the newspapers.

On the general subject of wing-tip news outlets: Breitbart, for example, isn't really the "alt-right" media, IMO, it's the "alt-sensational" media. They made a decision to cater to a specific kind of sensation-seeking reader. They get their clicks by tickling that reader's particular kind of sensitive spots. The same with whatever extreme "left-wing" news outlet you care to consider. The wing-tip outlets are all about high emotion/low fact stimulation. The readership gets more fact-oriented as you approach the middle of the bird. Not that I think you ever arrive at a 'neutral' center line
I agree with your point on the sensational media.
zoobyshoe said:
Coverage has become more heated, which is probably because the current occupant of the White House is the most outrageous character ever to be installed there in all of US history. For my money, they haven't slammed him nearly as hard as he deserves.
Installed in the White House? He was voted there by the American people. What the left should be doing, instead of crying Hitler, racist, xenophobe, is looking at themselves and trying to determine why they failed, and come up with a way to fix it.
 
  • #325
mheslep said:
Not according to the first amendment.
Yeah. To "take a hit," is not what I would call a legal term.
As did Obama's administration which similarly attempted to block Fox news.
Thanks. I was completely unaware of that incident. Looks like freedom of the press took a hit there. Obama was clearly in the wrong, and I'm glad he backed down quickly and didn't try to push it.
Here's one conservative analyst's take on the two similarly wrong actions:
It’s one thing to bash the press. It’s another thing entirely to take steps to deny access to disfavored outlets. When it comes to access, Trump needs to be better than Obama, not worse.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-access-trump-needs-be-better-obama-not-worse
This Trump incident is, indeed, worse, IMO, happening as it does in the context of the greater Bannon anti-media drive.
 
  • #326
TurtleMeister said:
In that case you've probably seen many main stream media reports and articles that portrayed Obama in a bad way?
I actually hate politics and did not read the news during most of the Obama administration. I didn't perk up till election time, and saw all the rushing to report on the continuing scandals of Hillary and the ever-so-clickable antics of Trump. When I saw Trump was getting really popular, I dropped everything else and went into DEFCON 1.
Installed in the White House? He was voted there by the American people.
Of course, you're right. Bad choice of words on my part.
What the left should be doing, instead of crying Hitler, racist, xenophobe, is looking at themselves and trying to determine why they failed, and come up with a way to fix it.
The Democratic party in in shambles, as far as I can see, and has no center around which to coalesce. Pence will break any tie in the Senate, so it is stymied there as well. The only force powerful enough to do anything about Trump is the Republican party, but they are completely pulling their punches until such time as they get their rewards for helping him into office. In the meantime, I think Trump can do an incredible amount of damage, particularly in that he can use the power he has to make himself harder and harder to get rid of. So, basically, Democrats are reduced to shrieking in panic.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook
  • #327
zoobyshoe said:
So, basically, Democrats are reduced to shrieking in panic.
Well then... let them eat cake .[COLOR=#black]...[/COLOR]
lmao.gif
 
  • #328
zoobyshoe said:
This Trump incident is, indeed, worse, IMO, happening as it does in the context of the greater Bannon anti-media drive.
The British media was also excluded you wonder if Bannon has any conflict of interest in preference to one news agency over another.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39088770
 
  • Like
Likes zoobyshoe
  • #329
Buckleymanor said:
The British media was also excluded you wonder if Bannon has any conflict of interest in preference to one news agency over another.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39088770

The media should be sending Trump gifts everyday thanking him for the attention the media is getting from this dance.
He loves to be the center of attention (good or bad) and they love the ad revenue he's generating.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/cbs-...e-good-for-america-but-its-damn-good-for-cbs/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maddie...the-media-but-they-won-with-him/#3ef9750345c7
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #330
nsaspook said:
The media should be sending Trump gifts everyday thanking him for the attention the media is getting from this dance.
He loves to be the center of attention (good or bad) and they love the ad revenue he's generating.
Yes every cloud has a silver lining.
Though it does not stop you getting drenched.
 
  • #331
zoobyshoe said:
You misunderstood me: I was being facetious. I don't think this should actually be done at all. Not the army, not the National Guard. Don't ignite dry tinder in the wild.

The only sane way to handle this problem is tighter gun control and extreme vetting for people who buy guns. But the NRA, and average rural yahoo won't have it.

It's not just "rural yahoos" who support the 2nd Amendment. People everywhere are afraid of being victims of violent crime and terrorism. We need to purge our society of violent criminals and terrorists. Then people will feel much safer and won't feel they must have a gun. Then perhaps we can gradually decrease gun ownership through various means, without needing to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

The desire among some for a so-called "Muslim ban" may be too radical, but it is based on a quite rational awareness of the dangers posed by the political and terrorist activities of some Muslims. Politically speaking, as long as there are officially Muslim nations, we have a huge problem.

It's interesting that perhaps the most religiously tolerant nation with a Muslim majority is Albania, which was the world's first officially atheist nation under Enver Hoxha. Although religion, including Islam, is once again allowed to be practiced openly, it seems this has not resulted in a surge of domestic Islamic terror groups. Pope Francis has praised Albania in this regard. But according to this story, some ethnic Albanian religious extremists, who live in other countries, are trying to stir up trouble. Hopefully any extremism will be neutralized.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/...opes-only-majority-muslim-country-318212.html

I believe this problem of religiously inspired violence won't go away until we deal with the root cause. Meanwhile, the best religion is one that people don't take too seriously.

This is a very interesting thread. But I think I've posted enough on this topic.

"Nothing unreal exists."

:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #332
nsaspook said:
The media should be sending Trump gifts everyday thanking him for the attention the media is getting from this dance.
No. It's no "dance". He's actually intimidating people into shutting up with storms of mass harrassment:

Republicans:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-congress-republicans-232800

And the "liberal" media:
http://billmoyers.com/story/breitbart-lynch-mob-came/

Miller's ominous statement about not criticizing Trump was not an idle threat. Bannon is actually trying to silence mainstream Republicans and the mainstream media.
 
  • #333
David Reeves said:
We need to purge our society of violent criminals and terrorists.
That will never be very effective, and never have long-term success. No one is born as violent criminal or terrorist. Work on the reasons people become violent criminals and terrorists.
David Reeves said:
Politically speaking, as long as there are officially Muslim nations, we have a huge problem.
Why? So far I mainly see the opposite direction, the US causing problems in those nations.
 
  • #334
mfb said:
... So far I mainly see the opposite direction, the US causing problems in those nations.
Broad statement. In all majority muslim nations, or some in particular? The Libyian intervention and Iraq 2003, yes, would devolve into a large debate about the problems caused by US intervention.

Indonesia is the largest, with 220M people. I am unaware of the US acting in Indonesia to cause problems, or in, say, nuclear capable Pakistan. The Bosnian war in in Europe's backyard, I don't think the US also caused that problem, unless intervening to stop a genocide a case of meddling. Should the US get out of NATO and mind it's own business? Along with the UK, France, and Germany, the US imposed sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program. If those sanctions were foreign meddling and 'policing the world', I don't know of a responsible alternative. Arab Spring in Tunisia, Eygpt? No US military there. The Paris attacks were largely by Morrocan and Algerian influenced Belgians. I'm unaware of US actions in those countries.
 
  • #335
zoobyshoe said:
The only force powerful enough to do anything about Trump is the Republican party, but they are completely pulling their punches until such time as they get their rewards for helping him into office.
Help from the Republicans? You must mean their allowing him to hijack their party. The only help he got was, ironically, from the media.
zoobyshoe said:
No. It's no "dance". He's actually intimidating people into shutting up with storms of mass harrassment:

Republicans:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-congress-republicans-232800

And the "liberal" media:
http://billmoyers.com/story/breitbart-lynch-mob-came/

Miller's ominous statement about not criticizing Trump was not an idle threat. Bannon is actually trying to silence mainstream Republicans and the mainstream media.
Both of your sources have a liberal bias (loaded words), not just the second one, as you seem to indicate.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico/
mfb said:
No one is born as violent criminal or terrorist.
That might be debatable. Studies of twins separated at birth reveal a staggering influence of genetics.
http://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html
 
  • #336
mheslep said:
Broad statement. In all majority muslim nations, or some in particular?
In some in particular.

If we go civilian death toll: The Iraq war alone had 150,000 - 1 million civilian casualties, depending on the estimate. Compare this to about 3000 deaths from Islamic terror in the US. We can even compare it to the total death toll of terror worldwide: 190,000 in the last 10 years. Most of them national: People from a country attacking people from the same country within that country.

TurtleMeister said:
That might be debatable. Studies of twins separated at birth reveal a staggering influence of genetics.
http://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html
It plays a role, but there is never a guarantee that someone becomes a criminal.
 
  • #337
TurtleMeister said:
That might be debatable. Studies of twins separated at birth reveal a staggering influence of genetics.
Eugenics not usually considered a nice part of human study and quite flawed.http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled
 
  • #339
TurtleMeister said:
Help from the Republicans? You must mean their allowing him to hijack their party. The only help he got was, ironically, from the media.
He got elected with no help from Republicans? I think Mike Pence as vice president is the clearest proof deals were struck. I don't think Trump is happy having to appear in church so often.

Both of your sources have a liberal bias (loaded words), not just the second one, as you seem to indicate.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico/
Meaning you think this kind of harassment just doesn't happen? Or?
 
  • #340
zoobyshoe said:
Meaning you think this kind of harassment just doesn't happen? Or?
No, meaning that you seemed to indicate that only the second source was liberal biased.
 
  • #341
TurtleMeister said:
No, meaning that you seemed to indicate that only the second source was liberal biased.
By "Republicans," and "the 'liberal' media" I was naming the targets of the harrassment. I didn't say anything about the bias of the sources at all.
 
  • #342
zoobyshoe said:
By "Republicans," and "the 'liberal' media" I was naming the targets of the harrassment. I didn't say anything about the bias of the sources at all.
Okay, I didn't know what you meant by Republicans. Never mind. :)
 
  • #343
TurtleMeister said:
Okay, I didn't know what you meant by Republicans. Never mind. :)
OK

But do consider the harassment issue raised. All that "Jail her! Jail her!" that was directed at Hillary can now be directed anywhere, and, apparently, has been directed even at Republicans who criticize Trump.
 
  • #344
zoobyshoe said:
No. It's no "dance". He's actually intimidating people into shutting up with storms of mass harrassment:

Oh, please. No need to be melodramatic like some in the media.

When the WaPo has a SuperHero like banner under the papers name it's pure theatrics.

"Democracy Dies in Darkness"

cb916e3d200c9553fae07506c522a611.jpg
 
  • #346
nsaspook said:
Oh, please. No need to be melodramatic like some in the media.
Do I hear you saying is that you approve of shutting people up this way, by mass harassment on twitter and such? Because the alternative explanation for calling me melodramatic would be because you didn't think the harassment was actually happening, that I've been fooled. But you aren't even trying to make that claim. However, maybe there's some other reason you could both believe it's happening and also call me melodramatic.

Maybe you're just trying to parse one thing from the other, the mass harassment from the media exclusion, in some attempt to cast the media exclusion as an anomalous excess rather than the tip of the much worse iceberg it actually is, which is that Trump actually want to shut his critics completely up.

The fact the media is benefitting from Trump does not mean Trump is equally thrilled by the negative media attention. He wants praise. Period. The media exclusion is a little trial run at doing to the new outlets that frankly criticize him what he did to protestors at his rallies.

Could be I totally missed your point, though. In which case, you'll have to explain.
 
  • #348
zoobyshoe said:
Do I hear you saying is that you approve of shutting people up this way, by mass harassment on twitter and such? Because the alternative explanation for calling me melodramatic would be because you didn't think the harassment was actually happening, that I've been fooled. But you aren't even trying to make that claim. However, maybe there's some other reason you could both believe it's happening and also call me melodramatic.

I call it melodramatic because I have more faith in the US democracy and rights than twitter tweets. What you call harassment is what I call getting out of bed after a long night of spooning together and competing for ideas. There's no requirement for the President to be nice or friendly to the press, so I don't have a problem with them using the truth to hit right back. To me, this is an invigoration of the press that will work out nicely as the power of opposing and/or different ideas settle.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #349
mfb said:
A reaction to the ban, seen at the Oscar ceremony: The Iranian winner did not attend, but sent a speech.

The whole ceremony was extremely political, that was one of the more notable points.

What happened to the times when old guys did one handed push-ups after winning.:smile:
 
  • #350
nsaspook said:
I call it melodramatic because I have more faith in the US democracy and rights than twitter tweets.
Nice to hear, but how many death threats from anonymous people does it take to make a Senator decide to keep his criticism to himself? I don't know the answer, but the article makes it clear these floods of rabid insults and threats of violence are giving them pause. How many are not talking to the press about it because that just invites more? Why is John McCain the only Republican who loudly calls Trump out when we know from remarks made before the election there's actually many more who despise Trump? It could be because he authentically has lived through worse than being harassed by internet mobs but for the others, this is the worst hostility they've ever experienced.
What you call harassment is what I call getting out of bed after a long night of spooning together and competing for ideas.
OK, well, since you're a tough guy, there are some Mexican drug cartel types showing up in my neighborhood again lately. Could you come over and send them away for me? Hope you have a lot of scary tattoos, cause they sure do.
https://sites.google.com/site/barri...enos-and-cartels---the-story-of-logan-heights
There's no requirement for the President to be nice or friendly to the press, so I don't have a problem with them using the truth to hit right back. To me, this is an invigoration of the press that will work out nicely as the power of opposing and/or different ideas settle.
Bannon isn't going to let anything settle and he's in an extremely good position to keep things stirred up, particularly fear of various threats. When people are afraid, they become more authoritarian and are willing to give up all sorts of freedoms to the people promising to keep them safe. Your confidence that things are going to naturally settle is not something I share at all.
 

Similar threads

News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
45
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top